possessions in the land of Palestine. Because of the great de- ple, who were already keeping the "too far law," stay in
64 Leviticus Dickson Teacher's Bible Commentary
2. The tabernacle was to be moved throughout the tribal possessions in the land of Palestine. Because of the great detail concerning the movement of the tabernacle, God was saying that it be made available to all the tribes of Israel. The reason for the mobility of the tabernacle was that it not be "to far" from any tribe all the time. The "too far law" that was given in reference to the offerings assumed that no one tribe would be continually too far from the tabernacle in order to offer burnt offerings. For example, if during one year the tabernacle was located in the southern part of the land, instructions were given in order that those tribes that were too far away could make their offerings where they were. They were "too far" from the tabernacle, and thus God established the "too far law" in order to accommodate them. But we must keep in mind that no tribe was consigned to always be too far from where the tabernacle was annually set up (See Dt 12:21; 14:24). The "too far law" was given only to accommodate temporarily those who were occasionally too far away from the tabernacle. 3. The tabernacle was not to be set up in a permanent location. The "too far law" assumed that the tabernacle was to be continually moved on an annual basis in order that no tribe be continually too far from its presence. God did not want the Israelites to establish a central location of worship, which thing they eventually did in their history. The religions of the world in which Israel existed established central places of worship, which eventually led to the building of pagan temples for local gods. In order to prevent Israel from doing this in reference to the presence of God among them, He originally intended that the tabernacle be moved from one place to another (See comments Jn 4:20-24). 4. The movement of the tabernacle among the possessions of Israel promoted unity. No one tribe became the sole custodian of the tabernacle. No one tribe could claim ownership of the tabernacle. What eventually happened in the history of Israel was the opposite of what God originally intended. This is brought out in the division of Israel into two kingdoms during the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. Rehoboam assumed kingship over the two southern tribes, whereupon they claimed the temple that was constructed by Solomon in their territory. Jeroboam claimed the northern ten tribes that were consigned to keep the "too far law" because the temple was built in Jerusalem. What Jeroboam did was to accommodate what the people had to do in reference to the annual sacrifices. Since they were consigned to always be too far from the
temple, he built altars in Dan and Bethel in order that the people, who were already keeping the "too far law," stay in their northern possessions (1 Kg 12:25-33). If Israel had obeyed God's original intent by keeping the tabernacle mobile, there would have never been a need for Jeroboam to build these two altars in order to accommodate those who were consigned to keep continually the "too far law." 5. The tabernacle was not a blueprint for the temple. The laws concerning the construction of the tabernacle in Exodus and Leviticus are very detailed. This detail was not given for the purpose of making the tabernacle a building plan (blueprint) for the construction of the temple that was built 480 years later. Keep in mind that after giving the law at Mt. Sinai, including the instructions and building of the tabernacle, God commanded Israel to go up immediately and take the land. If they had obeyed God to take the land immediately, then the tabernacle would have been with them from the time they left Mt. Sinai. God did not intend that it remain with them for a brief time after they arrived in Palestine. God gave detailed instructions for the building of the tabernacle so they would be able to refurbish or reconstruct the tabernacle throughout their history. 6. The tabernacle was a symbolic representation of the presence of God among His people. In Revelation 21:3 the tabernacle was used metaphorically by the Holy Spirit to refer to this principle. The Holy Spirit did not refer to the temple, but to the tabernacle as a symbol of the presence of God among His people. The temple was never in the original plan of God. It was built only to accommodate the desires of David and Solomon. God accommodated the construction of the temple as He accommodated Israel's desire to have a king over them as the nations around them. With the temple, the desire was the same. Israel wanted a temple for their God as the nations around them had temples for their gods. God's original plan was never to have a permanent location that represented His presence. Unfortunately, when a concession was made that was contrary to the original plan of God, there would be consequences to suffer. In reference to the temple, the consequence was the centralization of Israel's faith to a particular location, and the people's ignoring the work of the priests of God throughout the land. Instead of the priests moving among the tribes in their ministry, they confined their ministry to one location. In the Sinai law, God intended that the tabernacle be moved among the tribal territories in order to decentralize the service of the priest.
Leviticus
WRITER
This oracle of God was given to Israel through the inspired hand of Moses. Twenty of the 27 chapters of this book begin with the phrase, "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying ..." (See 1:1–3:17; 4:1–5:19). In other cases the Lord spoke to Aaron and his sons (6:9,25; 8:1,2), and at times the Lord spoke to both Moses and Aaron
(11:1; 13:1; 14:33; 15:1). It is assumed that during the latter part of Israel's wandering in the wilderness that Moses inscribed the words of this book for the instruction of Israel throughout their eventual dwelling in the land of promise. The actual giving of the laws of the book was between the erection of the tabernacle in the